Michael makes a point here that (at least originally) was implicit in the
contrast the Communist Party of China drew between
"marxISM-leninISM" on the one hand and Mao-THOUGHT on the other. An
"ism" is a general theory which holds sway over an entire historical
epoch (e.g., the epoch from the rise of capitalism until the triumph of
socialism), while _thought_ is how that works out when "rooted in
specific socio-economic conditions." Probably at first the distinction was
'merely' a way to maintain peace with the Comintern while merrily
disregarding it when it seemed useful to do so.
But I think the distinction is a worthwhile one and, in fact, should be
extended to the _thought_ of Lenin, Gramsci, Castro, Ho, Cabral, Chavez,
Luxemburg, & other revolutionary leaders. None of them propounded any
_theory_ good for all times and places, but if we see their revolutionary
thought as embedded in time & place, we are in a better position to learn
from them witout turning their words into sterile dogma.
Carrol
^^^^
Since they used LeninISM , did they categorize Lenin's contribution as an
"ism", not "thought", i.e. more general ?
Charles